Which lenses?

Hi,

IMO  Thom Hogan gives a good overview in http://www.bythom.com/nikon-dx-lens-summary.htm

A detailed article is found in http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm ( see especially chapters "Putting Together Logical Kits" and further down  in this article ).

QUOTE

Economy DX First up, let’s go the economy route for DX sensor DSLRs (basically all Nikon mount DSLRs except for the D700, D3, D3s, D3x, and the Kodak Pro 14n/SLRn). Here’s the low-cost portfolio that makes sense to me:

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR DX

(If you need more reach, the 55-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR DX is pretty much optically the same as the 55-200mm in the shared range. If you need a fast normal lens, augment the set with the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX.)

................................

For the DX-Shaky-Jake-Willing-to-Carry-a-Bit-More types (AKA the “Shaker”):

16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR

Two lenses cover everything but the very widest of angles, give you hand-holding flexibility, and minimize lens changing. What you give up isn’t really image quality so much as lack of flexibility in manipulating depth of field. An aperture of f/5.6 is way too middle-of-the-road for the telephoto ends of these zooms. Optically, both are excellent with only minimal issues. You’ll need 67mm filters. Yes, this duo is a bit heavy, which runs slightly counter to our goal. Still, it’s a very flexible pair that may let you abandon the tripod (even table top types) or monopod, and thus can’t be ignored. You may wonder why I didn't say 18-200mm here. Well, the 18-200mm isn't really 200mm at most focus distances you'd use it at, so it doesn't give you near as much reach as you think, and that extra 2mm at the wide end of the 16-85mm is very useful in travel circles. The 16-85mm is a better lens optically, too. Indeed, I'd take it almost any day over the 18-200mm.

The Leave-Out-The-Middle-Go-DX-As-Light-as-Possible option (the “Galen”):

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR (not yet reviewed on this site)

55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR

.....................

UNQUOTE

Another opinion :

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

The 18-105 and 70-300 are certainly good lenses.

Depending on what you need this may be a good choice.

E.g. : if you want 24mm ( 35mm equivalent ) you can choose the 16-85 VR ( 16*1.5=24 mm ) instead of the 18-105 VR, or choose the 10-24 + 35 mm f1.8  ( low light , shallow DOF ) + 55-200 VR as KR suggests.  If you need a zoom lens with low light capablity and shallow DOF the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is the better choice IMO.

..................

So it comes down to define wat you need. If you are not certain yet , the 18-105 is certainly a good start to learn to know what you need.

I hope this helps to form your own opinion.

Greetings,
Marc
ps : some interesting tutorial websites :
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/
http://www.normankoren.com/sitemap.html
If you want to learn about CNX2 :
http://www.capturenx.com/en/lessons/lessons/index.html
http://www.nx101.com/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2044786132_da243a808b_m.jpg
my photos (examples, see dpreview galleries):